Enter Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus, and his article: Resistance is Feudal.
Like myself and many others, this fellow has come to the stark realization that things in our society are breaking down on fundamental levels, because the shapers of our society were fundamentally wrong on quite a few things ever since 1776.
While embodying many good ideas and serving as a worthwhile effort at self-government, the fact is that the Constitution suffers from some severe ideological defects that made its eventual negation practically inevitable. Though designed as an instrument for dividing power and restraining government, its “Enlightenment” origins meant that it would rest on a foundation which was inimical to these goals. The philosophical background from which the Constitution arose was one that assumed two essentially unproven and unprovable hypotheses: the inherent goodness of man and the primacy of reason in man’s intuitions.Absolutely perfect. So far, we both agree.
John Adams said that our Constitution was made for moral, religious people. He said that the Constitution is inadequate to the government of "any other kind of people." And that is us. America is now "any other kind of people." President Barack Obama was right. We are not a Christian nation any longer. We are a land of hedonists, and as I said before, our body politic is a soulless zombie that ambles around in the world, reaching out to feed itself, regardless of the consequences.
Whatever those smart asses thought they were accomplishing during the "Enlightenment," the fact is that--just after they finished chopping off the heads of Catholics--the minds that spawned from the Enlightenment initiated something that was completely misguided. The Founders threw out centuries of proven government templates--monarchy--and they created a hideous, Freemasonic republic that we couldn't keep.
Why couldn't we keep the republic? Because we are not inherently good, and men are, by and large, not reasonable whatsoever. In fact, there's almost no reasoning with ninety nine percent of the people out there. For as Aristotle once said: "Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."
The writer, Cincinnatus, goes on to talk about how the Constitution lends itself to democracy, that the people end up voting themselves largess, and that straight democracy did not work out so well for the Athenians. And he wonders: once the United States collapses, what will become of us, since democracy created our problems in the first place?
It is at this point that Cincinnatus gives monarchy and aristocracy serious consideration. However, when he finally turns his attention towards monarchy, his opinion takes an unpredictable turn:
Now, many neoreactionaries support a return to a monarchy. I would tend to disagree with them, instead favoring a return to some form of oligarchic republicanism, which I believe provides the best mix of a rule of law system and the division of power among several competing members who balance out each other’s ambitions.Very strange. He shoots down the modern Western aristocracy that we have as something whose "interests are largely inimical to the people constituting the nations in which they exist." And yet, Cincinnatus gets a thrill from oligarchy.
The reality is that we are already living in an oligarchy. My Lord, Cincinnatus! Just look at the Democrat Party! It is a tentacle monster that is financed by a slew of insiders and special "chosen ones" who direct the outcome of the party's direction on a perpetual basis. Have you never heard of George Soros? The Democrat Party is the pinnacle--the prime example--of lobbyist corruption.
With a single monarch, you have a single individual who is responsible for the entire system. He is a symbol, and a mastermind of the nation. If the nation were to fall, it would be that monarch's fault. It would be his head on a stake. Everyone would clearly know who to blame if conditions were terrible.
Now, take an oligarchy. Should things become terrible, you will not know who to blame. Depending on the number of oligarchs, they could shift blame from one person to another, until you've reached the point that blame could never be properly assigned to one person. It could be "a committee's fault," or "the fault of a process," or "there was no good communication between individuals." Oligarchy keeps the individuals involved in a safe and nebulous bubble that no one can pin down. The best example of this is Hilary Clinton and her endless list of scandals.
And worst of all, as corruption grows within an oligarchy, and no one is able to pin down culprits and root out corruption, somehow power becomes more and more centralized under these oligarchs. Case in point: America in the 21st Century.
Even Charles Coulombe touches on oligarchy's failure, in his recently released book, Star Spangled Crown. He touches on oligarchy's failure in 1800's Britain, as local "freemen" struggled to keep the population at bay:
In the British Isles, despite the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and the Jacobite Wars, the Medieval constitutions of the various Boroughs and Burghs remained intact in 1800. Although the specifics varied from city to city and town to town, both the Craft and Merchant Guilds chose the Mayor and aldermen. Since only a minority of the male population of these places were "freemen," this meant that each Borough or Burgh was basically ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy, whose biggest worry was ensuring that the mob did not riot. This situation became far more difficult with the explosion in size of urban populations as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Beginning in 1835, a series of acts of parliament "reformed" local government, reducing mayors and guilds to ceremonial roles and widening the franchise. As in the rest of Europe, civil parishes were separated from church parishes, and the traditional Shire or County governments were reduced in authority; their Sheriffs and lords Lieutenant were reduced likewise to purely ritual status. This process continued into the 21st century, progressively eliminating unelected offices and extending the electorate on the one hand, while concentrating even more power into the hands of central authorities.As oligarchs ruled over the Boroughs, things became more chaotic. The population exploded, society became industrialized, and after a century of technological marvels, we can now see that power lies with an untouchable central authority.
And what does runaway central authority resemble? What does it look like when the "leaders" running the show have become so detached from it's country's posterity? In a word: Londonistan. If you need a name, I give you Angela Merkel.
However, I think that this video of the streets of Paris in 2016 says it all. This is what an oligarchy of unaccountables will do to your people.
A monarch would not allow this. A Christian monarch would feel duty-bound to prevent this kind of rape upon his people. A king would not allow a cloistered group of spineless men and women to open the floodgates to an invasion. Committees do that. Not leaders.
Here is the first post of this series: The Kingdom of Católica America - Part 1